SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mohd Suhail vs The State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2018 OF 2018

Mohd. Suhail, Age 25 years,
Occ.Student, R/o.Madafor Pur Mode,
Near Dr.A.K.Singh Clinic,
Ramapur Kohandaur Bazar, Pratapgarh,
Uttar Pradesh-230 401. Applicant
versus
The State of Maharashtra Respondent

Mr.Sudeep Pasbola with Bhavesh Takur and Karl Rustomkhan I/by
Rahul Arote for applicant.
Mr.Fair Merchant with Mahesh Ahire I/by Rizwan Merchant
Associates for intervenor.
Ms.A.A.Takalkar, APP, for State.
Mr.T.A.Sayyed, PSI, RAK Marg Police Station, present.

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

DATE : 1st October 2018
PC :

1. This is an application for anticipatory bail in CR No.189 of
2018 registered with R.A.K.Marg Police Station for offences under
Sections 498-A, 420, 406, 323, 504, 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code
and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. The applicant preferred an application for anticipatory bail
which was rejected by Sessions Court by order dated 15 th September
2018. The FIR was lodged on 4th August 2018. The marriage
between the parties was solemnized on 26 th December 2016. The
applicant is the husband of complainant. In the FIR the applicant
had impleaded several other family members of the applicant as
accused. The other accused had been granted anticipatory bail by
Sessions Court except the mother of applicant. The FIR refers to the
allegation of harassment, demand of dowry and alleged threat of
administering phenyl to the complainant. It is the prosecution case
that the applicant was only interested in dowry and residential
premises. It is alleged that Stridhan of the complainant has been
misappropriated by the accused.

3. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that the allegations
are false and concocted. On 19 th May 2018 the complainant had left
the matrimonial home. There were earlier attempts to resolve the
dispute. On 19th May 2018 the family members of applicant were
assaulted by relatives of complainant and NC in that regard has been
lodged with concerned police station. It is further submitted that
possession of the flat is being handed over to the complainant. It is
submitted that articles belonging to the complainant were lying in
the locker in the house which could be operated by thumb
impression of complainant.

4. Learned APP submitted that the FIR clearly makes out the
offence of cruelty u/s 498A of IPC and also Sections 406 and 323 of
IPC. The accused had also demanded dowry and committed offence
under Dowry Prohibition Act. The Stridhan and other articles are yet
to be recovered. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicant
is necessary.

5. The advocate for intervenor submits that the applicant and
other accused are involved in serious crime. The details of
harassment meted out to the applicant is reflected in the FIR. The
3 of 4 39.AA.2018.2018.doc

sole intention of the applicant to marry the complainant is to
demand dowry and to obtain the flat premises as he had no
residence in Mumbai. The fact that keys of the flat were handed
over to the applicant is reflected in the video recording. It is
submitted that there was an attempt to kill the complainant by
administering phenyl to her. It is, thus, submitted that ornaments of
the complainant and other articles are misappropriated by the
accused.

6. Perused the FIR and other documents annexed to this
application. The dispute relates to matrimonial discord between the
parties. The marriage was solemnized on 26th December 2016.
Admittedly in May-2018 the complainant has left the matrimonial
home. The FIR was lodged on 4 th August 2018. Several other
members of the family are also implicated as accused. Other persons
who have applied for anticipatory bail application have been granted
bail by Sessions Court. The allegations of harassment and cruelty
were attributed to all the accused. In the FIR it is alleged that the
accused were intending to administer phenyl to the complainant.
However, it cannot be said that the charge of Section 307 is made
out in this case. The FIR does not indicate that there was a charge of
administering phenyl to the complainant. Taking into consideration
the aforesaid circumstances, case for grant of interim protection is
made out.

7. Hence, I pass following order :
ORDER

(i) In the event of arrest of applicant in connection with CR
No.189 of 2018 registered with R.A.K.Marg Police Station, Mumbai,
4 of 4 39.AA.2018.2018.doc

the applicant be released on bail on furnishing PR bond in the sum of
Rs.25,000/- with one or two more sureties in the like amount;

(ii) The applicant shall report the investigating officer of R.A.K.
Marg Police Station once in a week on every Friday between 10 am
and 12 noon till next date of hearing.

(iii) Stand over to 22nd October 2018.

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)
MST

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation